Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3929 Lot 15 Compaction Report .... '"';;.._~ .:- . '1 · T.fI.E. SOl S Co., Inc.. i)h{jJ]~:(i)e9) 678-9669 FAX: (909) 678'9769 31705 Central Street, Suite A, wililQmar, CA 92595 . '"W. 3~Z.cr l.c:t\ to" E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.colll October 27, 2003 RECEiVED NOV 0 5 2003 CITY OF TEMECULA L__E'~t!EERING DEPARTMENT Mr. Kamal Odeh 28535 Heather Green Way Menifee, California 92584 SUBJECT: COMPACTION REPORT Propo~ Single-Family Residence LotlofTract 3929 30621 San Pasqua! Road Temecula, Riverside County, California Work Order 581301.22 Dear Mr. Odeh: INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, we have prepared this Compaction Report presenting the results of our: testing (}[thebuilding pad at the subject site. Compaction test results are included in this report in Appendix B;Table I. The subject pad was graded in accordance with the requirements of the City of Temecula and the 1997 UBC. The 20-scale "Precise Grading Plan", which was prepared by Aguirre & Associates of Riverside, California," and was provided to us by you, was utilized to locate our field density tests. An updated 20-scale.as-built "Precise Grading Plan", also prepared by Aquirre & Associates was utilized as a base. map for our test locations presented as Plate 1. Grading operations were completed by One Dozer Does It All. ACCOMP ANYING:MA}>S AND APPENDICES 1-- Location Map - Figure I (2000-sca1e) DeIlSity Test Location Map - Plate I (20-scale) Appendix A - Laboratory Test Results Appendix B - Results of Compaction Tests TRE. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 581301.22 \ .... ---- -~~__.."'==''''--'~'-- --_.~::..':;;Co::.::;..~;:~:_....' ,,",,",",~=-~--,-',,-,:::;::c"",. --""",,7_':_"""~""~~'-:=,--:.-:l--c=';;-~-"-:'___""'_""..____.,__ ._ ,.,~.~__._._.,.~ -- --_._--....~- , . . Mr. Kamal Odeh October 27,2003 Page 2 Proposed Development . The proposed development calls for the construction of a wood-framed, stucco exterior, concrete , slab-on-grade, single-family residence with garage. Based on our observation and the site plan, . it is anticipated that the subject structures will be founded entirely in engineered fill material. : Site Description Th.e subject site is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County, California. The subject : site is bordered by large parcel single-family residences on the east and west, by San Pasqua! Road I and large parcel residential development on the north, and on the south by an elementary school. Th.e geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location , Map, Figure 1, Topography, prior to grading, consisted of moderately steep to steep sloping terrain, sloping to the ! south at natural gradients that varied from approximately 16 to 40%, Overall relief in the vicinity of I the site grading was approximately 2:36-ft. KEYWAY EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION OBSERVATioNS & TESTING I Prior to rough grading, the areas to be graded were cleared of vegetation, which was removed from I the subject site. Rough grading operations consisted of the excavation of a keyway along the toe of I the fill slope. The outside edge of the keyway was founded a minimum of 2-ft. into dense , sedimentary bedrock units, The keyway was tilted at a minimum inclination of 2% into the existing I hillside. The exposed earth materials within the keyway were scarified a minimum of 12-inches I below the exposed surface, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to , 90% of the dry density, as determined by ASTM 1557. Benching was maintained into medium : dense to dense sedimentary bedrock that was free of pores & fine roots during grading operations, ,All topsoil/colluvial soils were removed during benching operations and were utilized as fill : materials. The materials used for fill consisted of on-site dark brown silty sands (Unified Soil ! Cla~sification-SM) derived from the on-site topsoil/colluvial and sedimentary bedrock and import : materials consisting of imported red-brown fme silty sands (Unified Soil Classification-SM). I Fill placement and compaction was achieved utilizing a CAT D6 bulldozer, and moisture : conditioning was accomplished utilizing a water truck. The fill was placed in 6 to 8-inch thick lifts 'and moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, as needed, with a water truck. A minimum . degree of compaction of90% was required, as determined by ASTM 1557. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 581301.22 "Z- T.N.E. Soils Co., Inc. I'hulIc: (909) 67H-9669 FAX: (909) 67H-9769 ] 170.:; CClItrJI Strect, Suite A ' Wildomar, CA 92.195 o ADAPTED FROM THE 1979 USGS, 7.5 MINUTE, MURRIETA QUADRANGLE MAP . I CXXl 2000 3000 '000 SCAlE: FT. SITE LOCA TION MAP wo.# 581301.22 Date: OCT. 2003 Figure: 1 ~ . . Mr. Kamal Odeh . October 27,2003 Page 3 CutlFill Transitions Rough grading operations at the site included overexcavation of the proposed building pad, therefore, eliminating the cut/fill transition for the house pad as staked by the contractor. TESTING PROCEDURES Maximum Density Determinations Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture determinations were performed in the laboratory on representative samples of on-site soils used in the fill operations. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Dl557, Test Method A. The test results, which were utilized in determining the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendix A, Table I. Fill Soils Soils utilized for compacted fill typically consisted of imported reddish brown and onsite dark brown silty sands (Unified Soil Classification-SM). Compaction test results are presented in Appendix B, Field Density Testing Field density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2922-91 (nuclear gauge). Areas failing to meet the minimum compaction requirements were reworked and retested until the specified degree of compaction was achieved. The elevations and the results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix B, Results of Compaction Tests, Table I. The approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Density Test Location Map, Plate 1. RECOMMENDATIONS Expansion Testing Expansion testing was performed at the completion of rough grading on a representative sample of the upper 3-ft of fill. The test results indicated and Expansion Index of 11, which corresponds to a very low (0-20) expansion potential (Table 18-1-B, 1997 UBC). The results are presented in Appendix A, Table n, T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 58\301.22 ~ ~ ""- '. "- ~, ,,', \\\ \ \ ' \, "\\~0'~"~''- ~ I , \ .,~ \ ,,-"'- ~" """"""::-\ \ \\"- " '" ~~.:'"~,.~~"",, V '\ :~\ \\"',.""""~~\\\\'",~,, ~~d~~ "1'\ /l \ \ ',,,-, , '\........." "7 ~,,,~,,,-, '\,<~~'\.,~ 7< ,"'- ",'",,' "'~\ V " \ \' ,\ '\., ~ ..... <7 S. ,,' \,~' '\." ,;';>S '\. " \" \ \ ~\ \ \, V \ ~~.'-." '\. \ \ ~~\'\...........,' \ ^\ \ <: ~', '-. " "- \ 0\....., "" " \ I \ \ ~ -\ \ ~;S '6::'; """,, "'-.... '\ \ \\\ \ \~;-"~,, \\ , ' ,~\~ \ \\ ~:~ \ ~\;1 " ,,~ ' \ \ ~'\. "-\ \' ~\, \ \ \\k<t, \\ @. \ ;:'~"" ~ '& \ \ "" '" "" ~ \ \' \ \' \ \ \ ;:; \ ~-<\--A \ \ \ \-:"'0 \. "'...... '~ \J\)..... '" " .......... ~ \ \ ' \\ ~ \ \ \ "Z ~ "'......^' '\ ~~ ' ''iii)', , S?\ \ '\ \ \ \ \ ~ '-..., ~;::; ", '\~~~..... \ \ \ a ~i U) () ~ Q r- ':1 '" - , ~ Q II '" Q ~ -< .;:., Q ~ "'" ,,:! r 0 ~ ~ ~ ~; I ~i ~ I r;;; -< <,,4( .. . ~ ~- ~-- - -4 ~ '""( :::i ~ i: ~~ I i 0'" :g2-M 1 ~ }.~II ;lo ~ 2:0 g ~ (;) VJ0 ~ 0 :::j i:ja 0 q. ~ . C'l :>: "<: 0 l:! Cl) ~;::i ;;; is , a~ 0 :0 '-.J == ~ ~ 5 a ~. ~ ~ ;l ~ ~ .. ~ ~ I~ C'1 _ ~ ~ % ~ ;l == ... '" ~ (") 0 ~ ..- ~ . 0- >l.N rn~ .. = ~:z: ~l:J~O~ -OC7:/"""" 00...,_10( ~~"'~;l i3...Sl~'" > "'., ~rn:j~l:"" ("),o>?>-o g~(:J~~ :>: ~ ,., :!~~~<o .. o~ :z: (")> ... >0 _oiiII! ~ I:l> ::;; "'... o :>: ~ &1 ;; 1 i ..., . i=.~. - /:!J , r.I:l o != C'-l ~ o ~ ~ z o . . Mr, Kamal Odeh October 27, 2003 Rage 4 Sulfate Content It is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement can be used for construction. A representative sample of the upper 3-ft, of the earth materials exposed on the pad surface was obtained for testing. Results of soluble sulfate testing reveal a 23-ppm (parts-per- million) of soluble sulfate, which equates to a negligible sulfate attack hazard (Table 19-A-4, 1997 UJBC). Babcock & Sons, Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the testing of the T!lpresentative sample. The results are presented in Appendix A, Table HI. Foundation System Design It is anticipated that the foundation elements should be founded entirely in compacted fill materials. T,H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should perform a footing inspection, prior to placement of reinforcement, to insure the proposed footing excavations are in conformance with the job specifications. The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the allowable foundation pressures and lateral bearing pressures presented for Class 4 soils on Table 18-I-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The allowable foundation and lateral pressures shall not exceed the values set forth in Table 18-I-A for Class 4 soils unless data to substantiate the ,use of higher values are submitted. Where the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may bear on continuous and isolated footings. The footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches, and be placed at least 12-inches below the lowest fina1 adjacent grade for one-story houses, with a minimum width of 12- inches, and be placed at least IS-inches below the lowest fina1 adjacent grade for two-story houses, Footings may be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure for Class 4 soils as per Table 18-I-A of the 1997 UBC for dead plus live loads. Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete. The structura1 engineer should design footings in accordance with the anticipated loads, the soil parameters given in this report, and the existing soil conditions. Footings should be set back from the top of all cut or fill slopes a horizontal distance equal to at lea~t Y, the vertical slope height with a minimum setback of at least 5- ft. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 581301.22 i(> . . Mr. Kamal Odeh October 27, 2003 Page 5 Total settlements under static loads of footings supported on in-place bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of 1 inch. Differential settlements under dynamic loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed 1/4-inches for a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary, Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM 1557 test method. It is our opinion, that utility trench backfill consisting of on-site or approved sandy soils can best be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density. All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards, as a minimum. Fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM 1557 test method. Surface Drainage Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape water. Construction Monitoring Observation and testing, by T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. is essential to verifY compliance with recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with the recommendations of this report. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should conduct construction monitoring, at the following stages of construction: . At completion of excavation of footings for foundations . During fill placement . During utility trench backfill operations 1I.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 581301.22 1 . . Mr. Kamal Odeh October 27,2003 Page 6 LIMITATIONS This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. The project architect or engineer should incorporate such information and recommendations into the plans, and take the necessary steps to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This firm does :not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site. Therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. This firm did not provide. any surveying services at the subject site and does not represent that the building locations, contours, elevations, or slopes are accurately depicted on the plans, The findings of this report are valid as of the report date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our controL Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. SUMMARY Our description of rough grading operations, as well as testing services, is limited to rough grade testing only, which was performed between April 10, 2003 and April 29, 2003 and September 29, 2003 and September 30, 2003. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observation and testing, as noted. It is our opinion the work performed in the areas denoted has generally been accomplished in accordance with the job specifications and the requirements of the regulating agencies. No conclusions or warranties are made for the areas not tested or observed. This report is based on information obtained during rough grading. No warranty as to the current conditions can be made. This report should be considered subject to review by the controlling authorities. T.HE. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 581301.22 e . . ! Mr. Kamal Odeh : October 27, 2003 iP!lge7 . This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated, If you have any questions, please call. 'Very truly yours, 'T,H.E. Soils Company, Ine, '~ . Frey ect Geolo . st ~d~ : ames R. Harrison Project Manager I JPF /ITR/JRH:jek ,T.I-1.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 581301.22 ~ . T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. APPENDIX A Laboratory Test Results . W.O. 581301.22 , \0 . . TABLE I 581301.22 Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture I I I I % I Description LbsIFf Moisture 1 Dark Brown Silty Sand 128.6 8.3 2 Reddish Brown Silty Sand 123.7 11.0 TABLE II Expansion Index Test Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential Pad Surface 11 Very Low TABLE III Soluble Sulfate Content Test Location Sulfate Content (ppm) Attack Hazard Pad Surface 23 Negligible T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 581301.22 \\ .' . TH.E. Soils Co., Inc. APPENDIX B Results of Compaction Tests . W.O. 581301.22 \z.. , . . . TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION KAMAL ODEH Job No.: 581301.22 LOT 7. TRAIT 3929. SAN PASQUAL RD.. TEMECULA, CA. DATE: OCT 2003 Test i Test Elev/ Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) I 1 4/11/03 1200.0 13.7 111.3 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 2 4/11/03 1202.0 8.7 111.2 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 3 4/11/03 1204.0 10,7 115.2 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 4 4/11/03 1206.0 7.9 115.8 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 5 4/17/03 1212.0 13.8 111.6 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 . 4/17/03 1208.0 10.6 113.6 91N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 6 , 7 4/17/03 1209.0 11.5 118,0 95N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 8 : 4/18/03 1211.0 11.1 111.4 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 9 4/18/03 1213.0 10,9 111.5 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 10. 4/18/03 1214.0 10.8 111.2 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 11 4/21/03 1215.0 11.4 110.8 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 12 · 4/21/03 1216.0 8.1 115.5 93N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 13 4/21/03 1217.0 14.2 114.4 93N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 14 4/22/03 1218.0 10.1 112.6 91N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 , 15 ' 4/22/03 1220.0 12.2 118.4 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 16 I 4/23/03 1221.0 11.5 118.1 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 , 17 ' 4/23/03 1223.0 9.1 119.3 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 18 . 4/23/03 1224.0 9.3 113.4 92N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 19 ! 4/24/03 FG 10.4 112.7 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 , 20 : 4/24/03 FG 13.3 111.6 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 21 : 4/29/03 FG 8,6 120.8 94N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 22 · 4/29/03 FG 9.8 112.9 90N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 I 23:- 4/29/03 FG 13.0 115.3 93N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 24 ' 4/29/03 FG 10.2 114,6 93N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 25 ; 9/29/03 1217.0 10.9 115.0 93N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 26 ' 9/29/03 1219.0 9.2 116.0 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 27 ! 9/29/03 1221.0 9.5 116.2 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 28 i 9/30/03 1223.0 9.8 117.3 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 29 , 9/30/03 FG 9.5 115.3 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 30 . 9/30/03 FG 9.0 115.5 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS SC-Sand Cone ASTM DI556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N.Nuclear ASTM 03017-93, and D2922-91; NG-Natural Ground + 850/0= Passing Test; ..- Test Failed. See Retest \~